Paper/Speech Details of Conference Program for the 18th NISPAcee Annual Conference Program Overview IV. Working Group on PA Reform Author(s) Richard Common University of York York United Kingdom Title The internationalisation of performance management and budgeting: Towards an explantory framework File Paper files are available only for conference participants, please login first. Presenter Abstract It is widely assumed that the adoption of performance management systems by governments is a universally accepted solution to the problems associated with ensuring the efficiency and effectiveness of policy delivery. This is an exploratory paper that analyses the international phenomenon of performance management by attempting to discern whether or not an international model exists, using the UK’s Comprehensive Spending Review as a possible framework. The paper also examines the role played by the OECD in the internationalisation of performance management by the development of ‘good practice’ guidelines. The paper then employs policy learning analysis to understand the processes by which performance management has developed as an international trend. What emerges from the paper is the difficulty of identifying common themes or elements within performance management, as each innovation is relatively unique to the policy problems individual governments must face. The paper then provides an analysis of the challenges faced by policy makers when attempting to learn lessons from overseas and argues that the policy context of an individual country provides the greatest obstacle to whether performance management is adopted or not. Political leaders face a constant battle to demonstrate how well their governments are doing. Economic uncertainty over the last four decades has helped to re-emphasise governmental efficiency and much of the same pressures that produced New Public Management (NPM) applies to the appeal of performance management. In developed Western countries, the perception of financial crisis or pressure to reduce public expenditure, or a combination of both, have fuelled the movement towards performance budgeting and management. Changes in a political administration also often provide the window of opportunity to bring in performance management as part of a wider package of public sector reform. In relation to effectiveness, as Talbot (2005: 491) observes, it is about delivering on promises made by politicians; or making the link between policies (what is promised) and delivery (what actually happens). In relation to efficiency, performance management is also concerned with the justification of public expenditure. Flynn (2007: 125) asks the question, ‘why measure and manage performance?’ Firstly, governments need to be accountable by ensuring the use of resources to achieve the intended results. This process usually involves some form of measurement. Secondly, governments will make promises and set targets and finally, performance is concerned with rooting out poor performers. What actually constitutes performance management is debatable. Furthermore, managing performance often includes accounts of financial and human resource management and managing organisational change in addition to budgeting, which adds a further layer of complexity. Thus the paper questions the applicability of international reform models where they have been developed in very different contexts from the countries in which they are being applied.
